mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

Luis Suarez Suspended 9 matches

FIFA has come down on Suarez this morning, to the tune of nine matches plus for months from all football activitiy. Does this 4 month ban include his club time? Not very clear as of yet, but it seems like this is a pretty fair punishment.

BREAKING: FIFA says Luis Suarez is suspended for nine matches plus four months from all football activity.

EDIT 2: As user SCS100 points out, this is a 9 match ban from FIFA World Cup games, meaning there is a strong chance he's out for the next WC as well. for a 27 year old, he might have just played his last match for Uruguay in the WC

What could possibly stop them? If they want to punish Suarez I would think they have the ability to do so.

The only debate would be that he wasn't playing for the club at the time, but when you sign a contract for a team you are (at least in the cases I have seen with hockey players) considered a representative of that club whether you're in season playing for that team or in the off-season on your own time. If you're under contract your actions (no matter where they occur) are a reflection on the club and therefore you can be held accountable for them (by the club). Again, I don't know anyone playing in the EPL but guys I know playing in the NHL all say the same thing where their contracts are concerned. I would think it would be similar across professional sports.

Anfield won't get the chance to apply their own punishment. FIFA kinda handled it. I suppose they could tack something on, but Suarez will be in a warmer climate ASAP. Except, they can't move him. FIFA'd.

Your sentiment about always representing your club no matter what is quaint, but it also assumes that Liverpool wouldn't hold him accountable. They don't really get that opportunity.

Liverpool can apply any punishment they see fit, if it's consistent with the player's contract and whatever overarching agreement governs club/player relations in the EPL. Uruguay can do the same if they like FIFA sanctions don't limit additional sanctions by club or national federation.

I believe that is 9 FIFA related matches. The four month ban is the part to look at, since it essentially rules him out of club matches until the end of October. That isn't a small ban. In my opinion, FIFA actually got this right.

The bigger question becomes whether or not those nine games are only for competitive matches. I would think that friendlies are included in that number, but not counting friendlies would be the harshest way to implement it (and probably the right one, too).

EDIT: Yanked from Liverpool's SB Nation site: The player Luis Suárez is to be suspended for nine (9) official matches. The first match of this suspension is to be served in the upcoming FIFA World Cup™ fixture between Colombia and Uruguay on 28 June 2014. The remaining match suspensions shall be served in Uruguay’s next FIFA World Cup match(es), as long as the team qualifies, and/or in the representative team’s subsequent official matches in accordance with art. 38 par. 2a) of the FDC.

· The player Luis Suárez is banned from taking part in any kind of football-related activity (administrative, sports or any other) for a period of four (4) months in accordance with art. 22 of the FDC.

· A stadium ban is pronounced against the player Luis Suárez in accordance with art. 21 of the FDC as follows: the player Luis Suárez is prohibited from entering the confines of any stadium during the period of the ban (point 3). The player Luis Suárez is prohibited from entering the confines of any stadium in which the representative team of Uruguay is playing while he has to serve the nine-match suspension (point 2).

To me, it looks like not only can he not appear at any related functions, but this effectively serves as a transfer ban (see the administrative bit in point 2). Well done, FIFA.

No, not quite - I believe it's any match but a friendly, which means what he'll miss is the Copa America and likely some qualifiers since CONMEBOL will probably start their qualification process next year.

My guess is he'll be back for the 2016 one. Worst case for Uruguay, he misses one game now, 4 at the 2015 Copa (assuming they use the same format and Uruguay doesn't crash out at the group stage) and then, in 2011, Uruguay had four WC qualifiers in the fall (or their spring.) That'd leave him one match left at the 2016 Copa - assuming I haven't missed anything - and then he can easily make that up if Uruguay goes past the first knockout game either this year or in the 2015 Copa.

Assuming you mean 2015, but I think this is right. Though CONMEBOL hasn't scheduled anything yet, based on this past qualifying round, looks like they begin in the fall after the Copa that follows the World Cup.

If you're LFC, what do you do -- still try to sell him? Who's buying? What are they paying? Do you plan for life without him? Do you hope he'll get you through the year when he gets back, and improve his cash value a bit by next transfer window (if not Jan 2015, then June 2015)? I would think the English fans are going to be extremely down on him -- he has embarrassed a truly proud franchise, and only a couple days after single-handedly knocking England out of the WC. If you're LFC, my guess is, you don't want him near the club and just say, off with you.

I was expecting FIFA to only rule on FIFA matches, so I was hoping for something draconian on that. Since they also banned him from club-play this seems like a decently appropriate penalty, outside of the fine, which is chump change to Suarez.

There's no question it's a penalty with some, wait for it, TEETH in it.

I've said repeatedly that something had to be done, and many here asserted (and want) this punishment to be more severe. But FIFA is overreaching and reactionary in this case.

When Suarez bit Ivanovic in club play he was banned by the English FA. Yet FIFA seemed unconcerned and allowed him to play for Uraguay. However, this punishment (again, something was forthcoming and deserved) prohibits Anfield from doing anything (sale or otherwise) until mid-October. It's a bad precedent for a physical altercation. They happen all the time. And yes, biting is bad. But so are headbuts, punches, overly-agressive tackles, eye-pokes or any number of other dirty acts on the pitch. They will now be handled by FIFA. At the expense of the clubs that pay the salaries.

As a result, the clubs like Chelsea, Juventus, et. al., will be more resistant to international play because they have invested significant resources in their clubs and the damage their players take for their national teams is a major anaccountable depreciation.

This is why you will hear more talk of a superleague involving not just the EPL, but the major clubs from the other euro associations.

How many times in the history of professional sports have you had a player that repeated BITES his opponents? I mean, the man acts like a rabid dog. Once and you give him the benefit of the doubt. Twice and he deserves severe punishment. Three times and I question if he should ever play again honestly.

I don't think this carries over into other disciplinary actions necessarily. I'm a bit surprised FIFA banned him from all play and not just FIFA play, but honestly, I think he's lucky he wasn't banned for the maximum 2 years.

This isn't setting any precedent for anyone other than Luis Suarez. No other footballer (in any professional high profile league) has ever been in trouble for biting people. I highly doubt any club with normal, psychologically sound players have any fear of this impacting them in any way, because none of them employ animals (other than Liverpool evidently).

You keep going on about headbutts and other "normal" yet violent infractions that often occur during the course of the game, but those have been happening for years without FIFA imposing a ban that carries over to club football. The precedent has been set for those types of infractions and they don't effect club play. This is a unique situation that needed a unique approach where punishment is concerned. I think the high profile football clubs around the world are smart enough to see that.

And I will continue to bang this because in addition to creating a precedent it is inconsistent policy.

FIFA applied punishment, as they are able to do. What is different is that they applied unilateral punishment for an overt physical act that occurred on the pitch which extends to the club season. And now the club suffers collateral damage for an act committed on FIFA's watch. It is inconsistent because FIFA didn't act when the FA sandwiched a four-match suspension at the end of 2013 and a six-match suspension of domestics around Suarez appearences in the 2013 Confeds Cup.

Anfield completely loses an asset with no ability to deal him to another club - which is likely their wish at this point - because he can't be transferred during the suspension. That's what has me pissed. Not your condescending remark about losing "my precious Suarez."

Even if you were right I would say, so what, but the drum you keep banging isn't correct in light of the statement in the articles, "FIFA officials have said he could be transferred during the four-month ban."

There was some earlier interpretations that the ban prohibited activity related to transfer. They have, if fact, clarified the wording. There remains the practical chilling effect of the ban on a future deal.

I did take on a condescending tone in my posts and I apologize for that. I should be able to discuss differing opinions in a respectful and cordial way. I'm not sure why this topic has me so fired up but somehow anytime the topic of discussion is L. Suarez I go a little off the deep end.

Seriously, I didn't mean to be offensive and I apologize for my tone. Whether I agree or disagree with you I should still be respectful in our interaction. +1 to make up for me being an ass.

Hey, no need - I'm not proud of the tone I took with you or Yeo. You guys always seemed like good cats. Suarez and really pissed me off this week because I completely bought into this notion that Rodgers and Gerrard got him to turn the corner. Top that off with an all nighter last night at my desk while I finish my workplace annual budget. I'm just ornery. And FIFA. Ugh. It will pass.

...will cease to be a major club. Forced to choose between playing for Liverpool and not getting released for national team duty or playing for another club and staying on their national team, the vast majority of international-level players will choose the latter. Forced to choose between refusing to release players for international duty or risking that one of their players might face club-level disciplinary action if they bite an oppoent, the vast majority of clubs will choose the latter.

No doubt in theory. But there's no comparison to today's EPL and the FA of the 80's in terms of finance, popularity and stature. Do you think the ownership groups will sit quietly if FIFA continues its over reach? I think you will see a super league of european teams before you see FIFA/UEFA win a battle against the EPL.

Liverpool possibly bans him until the January transfer window then he's off to whoever wants him. Because he won't be cup tied in Champions League he'll still have great value to the club and someone will pay a hefty fee for him.

He'll miss Liverpool's summer tour of America and altogether 7friendly's, 2 potential League Cup games (maybe 3), 9 Premier League games(including Man City and Everton) and 3 maybe even 4 Champions League dates.

Its seems Liverpool is being punished more harshly than Uruguay here, not sure thats right.

but it's Liverpool FC that he is under contract with and it was Liverpool FC who he was playing for when the SECOND biting infraction occurred. He was also playing for Liverpool when he proved what a racist dingbat he was.

In short, the fact that he still hasn't received the help he needs to get over his porpensity for biting probably lies more with the team for which he is under contract than a team he plays with a couple of times per year. In truth, the blame should be entirely his own but there will always be the question as to what Liverpool did to keep this from happeneing after he committed his second offense.

This is just a bizarre situation and I'm not sure anything to do with it could possibly be straight forward or make much sense.